Re: -= PROPOSAL =- Release sarge with amd64
Oliver Elphick <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> On Mon, 2004-07-26 at 18:57, Eduard Bloch wrote:
>> #include <hallo.h>
>> * Matt Zimmerman [Mon, Jul 26 2004, 10:32:58AM]:
>> > > *cough* are you beeing serious? All the time in the last 10 days I have
>> > > not seen any concrete and constructive posting from our DPL.
>> > Did you pick 10 days as an arbitrary interval which would not include his
>> > statement on this issue in <[🔎] 20040707114550.GA12096@deprecation.cyrius.com>?
>> > (7 July).
>> No. I could even say "in July" but it would not make any difference
>> since this posting is exactly what I talk about: pseudo arguments which
>> are either already known (and expected and proofed as non-sense) or SEP.
> That message from the DPL says:
> There are 3 issues which have to be clarified and taken care of before
> AMD64 can move into the archive:
> - Some technical AMD64 questions: ftpmaster had some specific
> questions about the AMD64 port they want to see answered.
> I never saw anywhere a post of what those questions were. Was there
No, exactly that question is the cause for all this GR business and
the rest of the flame.
The other two issues have been known and clarified (the LSB thing) or
are aparently ready for deployment (the mirror thing).